Intel Corp. is preparing to make a splash early next year when it officially launches its next-generation dual-core "Yonah" notebook processors, which will initially debut at a top speed of 2.16GHz dual-core.

The world's largest microprocessor maker plans to introduce two versions of Yonah: a single core version running at 1.66GHz and dual-core versions in 1.66GHz, 1.83GHz, 2.0GHz, and 2.16GHz. The company will reportedly market the chips as Centrino "Solo Core" and "Duo Core" processors.

The Yonah processors, which are widely expected to power the first wave of Apple laptops and consumer desktops, will each sport a 667MHz font-side-bus (FSB) and 2MB Level 2 cache. A faster version of Yonah due by the middle of next year will reportedly increase the chip's top speed to 2.3GHz.

Yonah will offer several improvements over Intel's previous generation Pentium M chips based on the Dothan core. One of the most significant improvements Yonah has over Dothan is its dual-core nature. However, since Yonah is based on Intel's new 65nm process, a dual-core Yonah die is about the same size as a single core Dothan die. This allows Intel to manufacture a dual-core Yonah at approximately the same cost as a single-core Dothan.

According to an Intel Yonah roadmap that surfaced in September, the company plans to charge approximately $209 for single-core 1.66GHz Yonah chip. Dual-core versions will reportedly fetch $241 (1.66GHz), $295 (1.83GHz), $422 (2.0GHz), and $639 (2.16GHz) per unit.

In a recent series of business-oriented and multimedia benchmark tests, AnandTech compared a pre-production dual-core 2.0GHz Yonah processor to a 2.0GHz Dothan-based Pentium M 760, as well as three AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors ranging in speeds from 2.0GHz to 2.2GHz.

In the business applications test, Yonah failed to shine, primarily because applications like Microsoft Word and Outlook Express do not take on a heavily multithreaded workload, which dual-core chips are designed to optimize.

With Yonah, "Intel has increased the L2 cache latency by 40%, and thus it is outperformed by the older, single core Pentium M processor despite the fact that they run at the same clock speed," AnandTech explained.

Yonah's performance in multimedia and 3D-intensive applications is a completely different story. In a Winstone 2004 multimedia content creation test, Yonah faired significantly better than the Pentium M with a score of 34.7 compared to the Pentium M's 28.3.

The dual-core chip's enhancements helped Yonah score second amongst the five chips in a Office Productivity SYSMark 2004 test and third in a SYSMark 2004 2D and 3D test. In both test, Yonah showed significant speed gains over the Pentium M.

In a final series of overall system performance test using WorldBench 5, the 2.0GHz Yonah score atop the list, just barely beating out AMD's 2.2GHz Athlon 64 X2 processor. Yonah also scored impressively in iTunes MP3 encoding, DVD ripping, 3dmax, Adobe Photoshop CS, and Adobe Premier benchmark tests. It also faired better than the Pentium M in gaming performance when tested with Battlefield 2, Black and White 2, F.E.A.R., Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and Quake 4.

"Our initial analysis still holds true, that for a notebook processor, [Yonah] will be nothing short of amazing for professionals.Â* Looking at the performance improvements offered everywhere from media encoding to 3D rendering, you're going to be able to do a lot more on your notebook than you originally thought possible (without resorting to a 12-pound desktop replacement)," AnandTech wrote in summarizing Yonah's performance. "The one thing that Intel's [Yonah] seems to be able to do very well is to truly bridge the gap between mobile and desktop performance, at least in thin and light packages."

As first reported by AppleInsider sources in November, Apple hopes to be one of -- if not the first -- PC maker to introduce systems based on Yonah when it shows the first Intel Macs at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco during the second week of January.

Already the game is heating up, with NEC this week revealing details of its first Yonah laptops without getting into the specifics of the Yonah processors that will power the machines. Not to be outdone, Dell in Frebuary will reveal a slew of new laptops based on Yonah, including a full range of Precision M90, Lattitude D620 and Lattitude D820 models, according to a recent report.

Intel is expected to formally unveil Yonah along with its "Viiv" media center technology during the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) which kicks-off on Jaunary 5th, just days before Apple chief executive Steve Jobs will appear before a Macworld Expo crowd to introduce the company's latest consumer products.

Has anyone worked out the performance gains over the PPCs using OS X? I would be interested in finding out how much faster the iBooks and PBs are going to be as a significant speed bump is going to be needed for the notebooks to fly off the shelves.

Originally posted by kenaustusHas anyone worked out the performance gains over the PPCs using OS X? I would be interested in finding out how much faster the iBooks and PBs are going to be as a significant speed bump is going to be needed for the notebooks to fly off the shelves.

Unscientific, but I think the 1.67Ghz G4 is regarded as being slower than the existing Centrino processor at similar speeds, so Yonah should pretty much smoke it (when looking at the Anandtech benchmarks).

Of course this will rely on having Universal Binaries ready to go aswell. I expect performance in Rosetta apps will be pretty much on par with the current G4s.

I have come across fairly good evidence that Apple was benchmarking hardware and software Fairplay solutions using the Viiv chipset. But early Viiv announcements very pointedly mentioned the use of Windows; later press releases have been more vague.

So I think technically, it's not Viiv since Apple isn't using Windows, but I think the chipset is the same as the Viiv chipset. Unless Intel redefines Viiv as a platform without reference to an OS...

Originally posted by TenoBellI doubt Apple will rush. I think it more wise if they take it easy with the transition. Release the lines in waves. If there are any problems they are less likely to occur across the entire line.

If I were in the market for a Quad the reason I might wait is for the PowerMac refresh with faster G5 processors.

This is a tough one. I don't really need one. I'm out of the business (mostly).

But I WANT one. So I can wait.

But if Apple does come out with machines this January, it means that they have either speeded up their activity with the Intel line, or that they ALWAYS intended to do this now.

As I said in an earlier thread; they may have snookered us.

I wouldn't put it past them to give us expectations of a long and leisurely changeover, but when things are ready, to do it earlier than expected, and more quickly.

It does make perfect sense. Last June, Jobs said that Rosetta would emulate a G3 W/O Altivec. That any apps that required either a G4 or G5, or Altivec wouldn't work at all. So we're thinking that they will need faster chips, and that many more developers will have to convert over.

Now, with 10.4.3 x86, Rosetta suddenly, and without Apple saying anything, emulates a G4 with Altivec, allowing a much greater assortment of programs to run.

Also, 10.4.4 will be out shortly. This is the first version in which the x86 version has been brought totally up to date with the PPC version.

This happens right before MacWorld. Coincidence?

So, this is why I'm wondering (as are many others) whether Apple has had plans all along to move this thing forward rapidly.

Remember the "leak" about Apple wanting Merom and other chips before they were supposed to be ready? Well, guess what happened? Apple will get them before they were supposed to be ready!

Therefore, if Apple releases two or even three new Mactels during MacWorld, I feel as though they will speed the other machines this year as well.

Merom will be available third quarter, and Conroe will be available third quarter. Leopard should be available before the end of the year. Maybe third Quarter?

Originally posted by mark2005I have come across fairly good evidence that Apple was benchmarking hardware and software Fairplay solutions using the Viiv chipset. But early Viiv announcements very pointedly mentioned the use of Windows; later press releases have been more vague.

So I think technically, it's not Viiv since Apple isn't using Windows, but I think the chipset is the same as the Viiv chipset. Unless Intel redefines Viiv as a platform without reference to an OS...

Once anyone's marketing plans include Apple, they're screwed. Even Intel is keeping their lips shut.

Who knows what's going to happen.

Even the thread on Ars about whether Apple will accept Intel's marketing money is already pages long.

It does make perfect sense. Last June, Jobs said that Rosetta would emulate a G3 W/O Altivec. That any apps that required either a G4 or G5, or Altivec wouldn't work at all. So we're thinking that they will need faster chips, and that many more developers will have to convert over.

Now, with 10.4.3 x86, Rosetta suddenly, and without Apple saying anything, emulates a G4 with Altivec, allowing a much greater assortment of programs to run.

I believe this is because Apple knows that Adobe, Microsoft, etc. applications that require G4 will either be VERY LATE 2006 or 2007 before they're ready, and I think some may NEVER port over from PPC (important apps). Apple had to provide SOME sort of compatability or people would become so frustrated that they'd leave the platform.

Originally posted by fluidinclusionI believe this is because Apple knows that Adobe, Microsoft, etc. applications that require G4 will either be VERY LATE 2006 or 2007 before they're ready, and I think some may NEVER port over from PPC (important apps). Apple had to provide SOME sort of compatability or people would become so frustrated that they'd leave the platform.

Or the fact that they ONLY promised G3 support as a minimum as they didn't want to over promise and fail to deliver, now that they know that Altvec emulation is possible, they've gone ahead and made it officially part of it.

Originally posted by TenoBellHighly unlikely will you see a Mac with an array of I/O ports like a component receiver. That goes against Apple's design philosphy in every way.

Apple is more likely to design a media center where I/O goes through one wire like HDMI.

Which is unfortunate because much of Apple's design philosophy seems to involve remove any bit of usefulness occasionally ergonomics that gets in the way of appearance, and even make somethings harder to do to beautify it, i.e. form instead of function, sometimes as if they are exclusive.

I don't want to be forced to HDMI because that means either replacing my reciever and display or an expensive external break-out box for an analog display out. Which sounds something asinine enough for Apple to do.

dualcore yonah in rosetta for macro/adobe and microsoft apps i strongly feel will outperform slightly the existing powerbook g4s. this is so that apple can release powerbooks and make their purchase worthwhile -- better performance now, stellar performance a few months down the track. with 1 flagship application fully intel-ified (i predict adobe photoshop) just my two cents of guesses

Originally posted by JeffDMWhich is unfortunate because much of Apple's design philosophy seems to involve remove any bit of usefulness occasionally ergonomics that gets in the way of appearance, and even make somethings harder to do to beautify it, i.e. form instead of function, sometimes as if they are exclusive.

I don't want to be forced to HDMI because that means either replacing my receiver and display or an expensive external break-out box for an analog display out. Which sounds something asinine enough for Apple to do.

U got it upside down. Apples design philosophy is more in line with the form follows function thesis than the other way around. (Not that they always manage to accomplish that.)
Lots of ports has nothing to do with usability. It's a question of having the right ports. This is how Apple was the first company to make the USB-port relevant.

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

Originally posted by New
U got it upside down. Apples design philosophy is more in line with the form follows function thesis than the other way around. (Not that they always manage to accomplish that.)
Lots of ports has nothing to do with usability. It's a question of having the right ports. This is how Apple was the first company to make the USB-port relevant.

the port situation on the mac mini though many would argue, is clearly a case where function was well bloody secondary to form but in general, i agree, i think the mac mini, like the cube (ouch, a naughty comparison) are exceptions to the apple form and function beautiful-synergy apple philosophy.

ipod mini 1st and 2nd gen (the only gen's ) : pure excellence of form and function IMHO.

The Cube is a good example. An attempt at a truely functional, minimalistic piece of computer that fails on so many details it's almost funny. One should think the hadn't tested many of the features at all. (Or maybe Jobs just insisted too hard on not changing them ;-) ).
Many of these things have been fixed in the Mini. In many ways a good evolution in a design. Still, a lot could be better. But all in all, the mini is very true to the idea of what kind of computer it wants to be.

The current iMac is a practical example of excellence in form follows function. I think its probably the most perfect mac to date.

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

yes, after having moved through sata controller, midplane, capacitor, whiny fan, and overheating issues (i'm not being sarcastic, agreeing with you here) ... the imac g5 is truly awesome now. particularly the built in high-quality isight. took a little bit to work out the kinks but it's definitely f**ing brilliant now, i wish i had one...!

Originally posted by NewU got it upside down. Apples design philosophy is more in line with the form follows function thesis than the other way around.

Exactly. Many miss this when they see beautiful design. It often comes from though through design that is functional. That is no less true when i comes to modern technology and the user interface and menu system of the iPod compared to the other players when it was introduced is a prime example.

"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush

Originally posted by JeffDMWhich is unfortunate because much of Apple's design philosophy seems to involve remove any bit of usefulness occasionally ergonomics that gets in the way of appearance, and even make somethings harder to do to beautify it, i.e. form instead of function, sometimes as if they are exclusive.

I don't want to be forced to HDMI because that means either replacing my reciever and display or an expensive external break-out box for an analog display out. Which sounds something asinine enough for Apple to do.

Don't blame Apple for what is becoming an indusrty standard, unless it is succeeded by UDI, which will be even better.

Apple MUST follow the standards.

We will as well. It won't be too long now when all hi fef monitors will become obsolete if they don't have at least DVI/HDCP, or HDMI/HDCP, or UDI/HDCP.

We don't have to like it. The content providers are requiring it.

And these newer standards have higher bandwidths for future increases in quality.

Does anybody think that the iBook will be dual core? Won't such a machine completely spank a powerbook? I mean, even if a 1.5 Yonah is only as good as a G4, the iBook will have two and the powerbook will have only one?

Which is unfortunate because much of Apple's design philosophy seems to involve remove any bit of usefulness occasionally ergonomics that gets in the way of appearance, and even make somethings harder to do to beautify it, i.e. form instead of function, sometimes as if they are exclusive.

To put a different spin on it.

Requiring a receiver with so many different I/O ports is bad function and design to begin with. Someone long ago should have looked at the back of a consumer receiver and thought "man this is ridiculous". A lot of it is redundant and needed to be consolidated long ago.

There are professional video cards that work with high bandwidth Serial Digital Interface. They have slimmed the I/O down to the necessary few wires your NLE system needs to work with a professional deck.

Another example is the current state of the remote control.

The design of the consumer remote control is a supreme example of bad unintuitive deesign.

When Steve Jobs introduced the six button remote. Some people decried that it lost function in favor of design. But what that ignores is the fact that a 50 button remote control is such bad design that most of those buttons serve no function for most people.

I'm no technology novice and I have no idea what most buttons are for on most remote controls. I mostly use them to change the channel, adjust the volume, play, rewind, fast forward, etc. But the other 40 buttons I have no idea what they do.

Having said all that at times Apple does make some design/function blunders. And that's OK there is no way they can be 100% perfect. And they learn from their mistakes to make the next version better. At least they are making the effort.

Originally posted by anandDoes anybody think that the iBook will be dual core? Won't such a machine completely spank a powerbook? I mean, even if a 1.5 Yonah is only as good as a G4, the iBook will have two and the powerbook will have only one?

Apple has been crippling iBooks for years. Can we say, "second core disabled?"

The iBook is intended for consumer use not professional. Apple probably won't offer the iBook as dual core this year. For one reason dual core will raise the price point. Another reason is that it is not expected that the general consumer will use multithreaded applications that could even take full advantage of dual core processors.

I don't know of any other OEM that offers this degree of software/hardware functionality for $999.

It doesn't support external monitor resolutions above 1024x768. (Everything down to the cheapest $500 competitors does not suffer from this problem.) It can't even run Apple's own displays due to lack of DVI. The processor is slower than virtually anything else. Also, there is no DVD burner in $999 iBook like you imply.

Don't get me wrong, iBook is an *okay* deal, but there's no avoiding the fact it is crippled on purpose.